Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Papua New Guinea District Court |
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS TRAFFIC JURISDICTION]
WTC No 634 of 2020
BETWEEN
THE POLICE
Informant
AND
ENOCH APAMI
Defendant
2020: 24th of December
TRAFFIC OFFENCE – Driving Without due care and attention – s 28 (2)(a) – Road Traffic Rules-Road User Rules 2017.
TRAFFIC OFFENCE- Trial- Whether the Defendant drove without due care and attention – Elements of the offence discussed – Defendant exercised due care and attention - Verdict of Not Guilty
Cases Cited
State v John Ekapa [2007] DC518
References
Legislation
Road Traffic Rules – Road User Rules2017
Counsel
Sergeant Emmanuel Bigam, for the Informant
Mr. Pailaia, I., For the Defendant
RULING ON VERDICT
24th December 2020
S Tanei: The Defendant pleaded not guilty to one count of Driving Without Due Care and Attention contrary to section 28 (2) (a) of the Road Traffic Rules – Road User Rules 2017.
FACTS:
ISSUES:
THE LAW
“(2) The driver of a motor vehicle on a public street must not–
(a) drive without due care and attention;........”
EVIDENCE
She was the arresting officer and the investigation officer in this case. She testified that she was on duty on 14th May 2020 when the Defendant and Complainant were brought to the Station by an unnamed Traffic Officer who told her that the parties got into a motor vehicle accident. She then got their statements. She says that from the report from the Traffic officer, the Defendant was at fault. She also testified that the Defendant said that he was at fault and agreed to fix the damage on the Complainant’s car. She then told them to come back to the station the next day with quotes so they could settle the matter. She said that when they returned the next day she arrested the Defendant because the quotes were too high and the Defendant could not meet them.
At Cross Examination, she denied knowing the Complainant and denied pressuring the Defendant to admit to the offence. She also admitted that the damage on the Complainant’s car was not substantial.
He is a reserve constable attached with Idubada Police Post. He testified that his unit was called to assist in capturing a stolen motor vehicle in their area on 14th May 2020 so they put up a mini road block at the Hanuabada/Koura Way Junction/Roundabout. He was with 3 of his other colleagues. They were all outside conducting checks on vehicles. He said he saw the Complainant drove up and parked on the side and then he saw the Defendant drove his vehicle into the Complainant’s lane and bumped her vehicle. He then walked over to the parties, talked to them and got their licenses. Just then a Traffic Police Officer on a Motor Cycle rode by so he handed the parties over to the officer and they drove off. He said the Defendant said that he was wrong at that time.
During Cross examination, he said it was not a road block but a mini road block with no cones.
She is the Complainant in this matter. She testified that on 14th May 2020, she drove up from Hanuabada towards Koura Way. She was on the inside lane and there was no vehicle in front. On her left there were two police officers who blocked the road and checked a taxi. The Defendant’s car was behind the taxi. She said she was on 60 kms/h. She said as she stopped at the roundabout to look, the Defendant pulled out and bumped her vehicle. The Defendant then admitted that he was wrong. Their licenses were taken and given to the Traffic Officer on a Motor Cycle and they were taken to the Police Station at 4 Mile.
She then stated that the Defendant admitted to being wrong at the Station and agreed to fix the damage. He later changed his mind when quotes were brought to him. Pictures of the damage to the vehicles were shown to the Complainant and admitted into evidence as Exhibits P1, P2, P3, P4 and P5.
During Cross Examination, she stated that she was on her lane when the Defendant pulled out and bumped her. When asked if she saw the Defendant give a signal or indication of switching lanes, she said she would not know. She also said she did not toot a horn when she saw the Defendant pulling out. She denied knowing the arresting officer. She said her vehicle only suffered minor dents and scratches and no mechanical problems.
This is the Defendant. He testified that on 14th May 2020, he was driving up Hanuabada way with his friend Lionel when they saw a Police Vehicle on the roundabout island. They drove behind a taxi. Just as the Police saw the taxi they left the island and drove down to the lane in front of the taxi and stopped it. There were 2 Policemen in the Police vehicle. This caused a build-up in traffic. There were other vehicles behind them. When he saw traffic building up, he turned on the right indicator (signal light), looked out and when he saw no vehicle, he pulled into the right lane. Just then the Complainant drove up and collided with his vehicle. She was speeding and did not toot her horn. He said three quarters (3/4) of his vehicle was already in the other lane when the Complainant’s car sped up and bumped his car. When he realised that his vehicle would be hit, he quickly turned the steer but it was too late, the Complainant’s vehicle had already hit the right front fender of his vehicle.
Policemen at the scene came over and pulled them aside. Just then a Police Traffic Officer on a Motor Bike rode by and took over. He escorted the parties to 4 Mile Traffic Police Station.
At the Station, he drew a sketch and gave it to the arresting officer. When the Defendant and his passenger Lionel Lahoe wanted to speak and explain that he was trying to avoid traffic by switching lanes when he got hit by the Complainant, they were shouted down by the Police officers and they were not given any opportunity to explain.
He then offered to fix the Complainant’s Motor vehicle because his brother works at Bismilah Motors and he would do it for free. However, the Complainant refused this offer and decided to bring her own quotes. She brought three quotes ranging from K 4, 000 to K 6, 000 the next day. The Defendant refused to accept these quotes and opted to be arrested. He also maintained all along that he did not admit that he was at fault.
During Cross examination, the Defendant maintained that he put on his light indicator (signal light) and looked carefully before switching lanes. He also said there was no horn being tooted by the Complainant.
This witness was with the Defendant at the time of the incident. He testified that on that day he was sitting in the cabin with the Defendant when the Defendant drove up to Koura Way from Hanuabada. He said at that at that relevant time they drive behind a taxi. As they were driving up to the roundabout at the intersection, they saw a police vehicle parked on the island. That police vehicle drove over to their lane and stopped the taxi. Trafic built up. The search took about two (2) minutes. There they looked and there was no vehicle on the other lane so the Defendant switched lanes. Just then, the Complainant sped up and bumped them.
He stated that there were only two (2) police officers in the Police vehicle. One of them was in the car while the other came out and searched the taxi.
He said the Defendant indicated that he would switch to the right lane by putting on his indicators before switching lanes. However, the Complainant was at high speed and did not toot any horn at them but ran straight into them.
He said the Defendant’s car was badly damaged. The right fender was damaged in but the Complainant’s vehicle suffered only a scratch on its left front side.
A Policeman on a Motorbike rode by and took over from the two (2) Police Officers at the scene and escorted them to the Traffic Police Station at 4 Mile.
He said that the Policeman on the Motorbike drew a sketch and gave it to the Arresting Officer on how the accident occurred.
He also testified that he and the Defendant were not given any opportunity to speak at the station or explain themselves. They were shouted down by Police Officers. He maintained that the Defendant at no time admitted that he was wrong but asked the Complainant to bring quotes. The quotes were between K 4,000 and K 6, 000.00.
During Cross examination, he said the Complainant did not toot her horn and that she was speeding.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
UNDISPUTED FACTS
DISPUTED FACTS
The following facts are in dispute;
FINDINGS
“10. Driving without due care has two aspects.
11. Firstly, under the drivers sole control are the mechanical and electrical devices which he uses to assist him in taking proper control of the vehicle for the safety not only of the vehicle but more importantly for pedestrians and other public road users.
12. Whatever he does in the cabin with those mechanical and electrical devices are within his control whether he uses them or not can only be reflected or manifested externally. For example, if he blinks to turn left, the left signals would blink indicating to pedestrians that the driver has used electrical devices to indicate his intention to turn left.
13. But whatever he does in the cabin is peculiarly within his knowledge. In that regard anyone outside the cabin cannot say whether the driver had applied any of those electrical or mechanical devices. They can only tell of the effects of the use of those devices.
14. Whether a driver is taking due care in his driving is the effect of the use of the devices and when used can be seen by those outside the cabin.
15. For example, if the vehicle is slowing down then it indicates that brakes devices and the fuels accelerator are being used to either slow or stop the motor vehicle.
16. The second aspect of taking due care in driving is that a reasonable driver takes serious attention on the road and the surrounding vicinity of the road. He ensures that the vehicle is properly on the road, and that it is free to run on the road clear of obstacles and pedestrians etc using the electrical and mechanical devices which are within his control only. With that discussion, taking care requires diligent and serious attention and care and control of the mechanical and electrical devices coupled with serious attention on and the vicinity of the road.” (Emphasis mine).
CONCLUSION
COURT ORDERS
Lawyer for the Informant Police Prosecutions
Lawyer for the Offender: Public Solicitor
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGDC/2020/64.html